"The third-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the majority. The second-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the minority. The first-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking."A. A. Milne

In the propaganda wars that surround elections, political labels often become detached from reality. The leading contender for the Democratic presidential nomination, Barack Obama, has been called a "leftist" by Republican flacks and a "progressive" by some of his supporters. Others see Obama as a moderate Democrat only slightly less friendly to corporate capital and to the military-industrial complex than the Republican John McCain. It would be no surprise, then, if many people were wondering, Just who is a progressive?

No one, of course, has the authority to decide who is a progressive and who isn't. Yet if the label "progressive" has meaning at all, it is only because of some shared criteria we have in mind when we use it. So it might be worthwhile to put these criteria on the table, not to draw boundaries and hand out membership badges, but to spark a conversation about the common ground of ideas and values on which progressives stand, and to underscore the point that the center is not the left.

So who is a progressive? You might be one if

• You think health care is a basic human right, and that single-payer national health insurance is a worthwhile reform on our way toward creating a non-profit national health care service.

• You think that human rights ought always to trump property rights.

• You think U.S. military spending is an obscene waste of resources, and that the only freedom this spending protects is the freedom of economic elites to exploit working people all around the planet.

• You think U.S. troops should be brought home not only from Afghanistan and Iraq, but from all 130 countries in which the U.S. has military bases.

• You think political leaders who engage in "preemptive war" and invasions should be brought to trial for crimes against humanity and judged against the standards of international law established at Nuremberg after World War Two.

• You think public education should be free, not just from kindergarten through high school, but as far as a person is willing and able to go.

• You think that electoral reform should include instant run-off voting, publicly-financed elections, easy ballot access for all parties, and proportional representation.

• You think that electoral democracy is not enough, and that democracy must also be participatory and extend to workplaces.

• You think that strengthening the rights of all workers to unionize and bargain collectively is a useful step toward full economic democracy.

• You think that as a society we have a collective obligation to provide everyone who is willing and able to work with a job that pays a living wage and offers dignity.

• You think that a class system which forces some people to do dirty, dangerous, boring work all the time, while others get to do clean, safe, interesting work all the time, can never deliver social justice.

• You think that regulating big corporations isn't enough, and that such corporations, if they are allowed to exist at all, must either serve the common good or be put into public receivership.

• You think that the legal doctrine granting corporations the same constitutional rights as natural persons is absurd and must be overturned.

• You think it's wrong to allow individuals to accumulate wealth without limits, and that the highest incomes should be capped well before they begin to threaten community and democracy.

• You think that wealth, not just income, should be taxed.

• You think it's crazy to use the Old Testament as a policy guide for the 21st century.

• You believe in celebrating diversity, while also recognizing that having women and people of color proportionately represented among the class of oppressors is not the goal we should be aiming for.

• You think that the state has no right to kill, and that putting people to death to show that killing is wrong will always be a self-defeating policy.

• You think that anyone who desires the reins of power that come with high political office should, by reason of that desire, be seen as unfit for the job.

• You think that instead of more leaders, we need fewer followers.

• You think that national borders, while sometimes establishing territories of safety, more often establish territories of exploitation, much like gang turf.

• You are open to considering how the privileges you enjoy because of race, class, gender, sexual orientation, and/or physical ability might come at the expense of others.

• You believe that voting every few years is a weak form of political participation, and that achieving social justice requires concerted effort before, during, and after elections.

• You think that, ideally, no one would have more wealth more than they need until everyone has at least as much as they need to live a safe, happy, decent life.

• You recognize that an economic system which requires continuous expansion, destroys the environment, relies on rapidly-depleting fossil fuels, exacerbates inequality, and leads to war after war is unsustainable and must be replaced. Score a bonus point if you understand that sticking to the existing system is what's unrealistic.

No doubt some readers will say this list is incomplete. It is. Many policy issues of importance to progressives go unmentioned. Others might say that the list leans too far to the left, or not far enough. It could also be said that some items are vague (what does it mean to say that human rights ought always to trump property rights?). These are all useful responses. If we hope to work together to transform the social world, we need to know what we agree on, what we don't agree on, and what needs further hashing-out.

In the end, however, it's not labels and identities and criteria for bestowing them that really matter. Political terms have consequences, but only because of how we use them. Which suggests another item for the list. You might be a progressive if you think that it's important to take seriously the meaning of political identities, but that what really matters is living out those identities in ways that help to create more peace, justice, and equality.

Michael Schwalbe is a professor of sociology at North Carolina State University.

"The third-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the majority. The second-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the minority. The first-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking."A. A. Milne

There is such a blatant, ideological, communist propagandist slant to that article!

Looks like I am a progressive too.

You think that national borders, while sometimes establishing territories of safety, more often establish territories of exploitation, much like gang turf.

To anyone paying attention, the progressives are also globalist, NWO underminers. They just envision its existence without banks. But the result will be the same. Total control by the few elite, over the many.

Truthdefender wrote:There is such a blatant, ideological, communist propagandist slant to that article!

Looks like I am a progressive too.

You think that national borders, while sometimes establishing territories of safety, more often establish territories of exploitation, much like gang turf.

To anyone paying attention, the progressives are also globalist, NWO underminers. They just envision its existence without banks. But the result will be the same. Total control by the few elite, over the many.

How about the Republican progressives?

"The third-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the majority. The second-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the minority. The first-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking."A. A. Milne

Truthdefender wrote:There is such a blatant, ideological, communist propagandist slant to that article!

Looks like I am a progressive too.

You think that national borders, while sometimes establishing territories of safety, more often establish territories of exploitation, much like gang turf.

To anyone paying attention, the progressives are also globalist, NWO underminers. They just envision its existence without banks. But the result will be the same. Total control by the few elite, over the many.

^ you get it, its the same old xmas present except the wrapping paper is different,

those labels dont mean much anymore, there just ways of hiding intent, theyve made a birthday cake outta dogshit, and the public is being fed it and wont know the difference until they take the first bite.

u can wrap it in any metaphorical analogy you like, however, the reality will actually be much much worse,

at this point in time, expecting anything less is ignorance. and a lack of understanding of the general mindset of the uber wealthy.

the story of life is quicker than the blink of an eye, the story of love is hello and goodbye, until we meet again my friend.

In which John Green teaches you about the Progressive Era in the United States. In the late 19th and early 20th century in America, there was a sense that things could be improved upon. A sense that reforms should be enacted. A sense that progress should be made. As a result, we got the Progressive Era, which has very little to do with automobile insurance, but a little to do with automobiles. All this overlapped with the Gilded Age, and is a little confusing, but here we have it. Basically, people were trying to solve some of the social problems that came with the benefits of industrial capitalism. To oversimplify, there was a competition between the corporations' desire to keep wages low and workers' desire to have a decent life. Improving food safety, reducing child labor, and unions were all on the agenda in the Progressive Era. While progress was being made, and people were becoming more free, these gains were not equally distributed. Jim Crow laws were put in place in the south, and immigrant rights were restricted as well. So once again on Crash Course, things aren't so simple.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0Q4zPR4G7M

"The third-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the majority. The second-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the minority. The first-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking."A. A. Milne

unlike the history we've been 'taught' throughout or lives,what i write here are all legitimate,verifiable facts.the republican('R') party was founded at the inception of our country(1776) and the democratic('D') party was founded by a man named Francis Bacon,author of the new atlantis,a member of the Golden Dawn and the Hellfire Club in the early 1800's.his true dreams and aspiration for the 'D' party were brought to fruition through the thoughts and writings of a man named Karl Marx.the meeting of these two men has brought us the modern day democratic party.far fetched,you say?only beacause of your indoctrinated mind has come to believe the lies our country has force fed us.we can thank the infiltration and subversion of our country to one man.....president Woodrow Wilson.(in the coming days i will fill you in on the insidious and grotesque path he has led us down,as for now...i'll stay on topic.)the ideas of Marx(Marxism) were implemented by the russians and it was called COMMUNISM.after WWII,the entire planet knew what communism was and what kind of destruction and death it brought to millions worldwide,and the 'D' party knew they could not publicly ally themselves with this term or idea.so,in the 60's they now called themselves LIBERALS.by the 80's,americans had,slowly,realised what it truly was.Marxism.so the 'D' party now called themselves SOCIALISTS.a softer,friendlier term.again..it took until the mid nineties,but the american people had come to realise what it was,Marxism.again..the 'D' party changed their moniker and began calling themselves PROGRESSIVES.the 'R' has held it values,it's name and it's objectives(life,liberty etc...)since the founding of america.what i do know is this....if someone is hiding and/or changing their identity it is for ONLY one reason-to hide the truth.they are liars.period.the definition of truth is 'that which is self-evident'

it doesn't get any more 'self-evident' than this.

i'll end like i always do....DO NOT BELIEVE ME OR MY WORDS.....SEEK THE TRUTH ON YOUR OWN

truth,love and joymatt

Bureaucracy defends the status quo long past the time when the quo has lost its status. — Laurence J. Peter

Boondox681 wrote:the republican('R') party was founded at the inception of our country(1776)

Wrong.

With the successful introduction of the Kansas-Nebraska Bill of 1854, an act that dissolved the terms of the Missouri Compromise and allowed slave or free status to be decided in the territories by popular sovereignty, the Whigs disintegrated. By February 1854, anti-slavery Whigs had begun meeting in the upper midwestern states to discuss the formation of a new party. One such meeting, in Wisconsin on March 20, 1854, is generally remembered as the founding meeting of the Republican Party.

Boondox681 wrote: and the democratic('D') party was founded by a man named Francis Bacon,author of the new atlantis,a member of the Golden Dawn and the Hellfire Club in the early 1800's. his true dreams and aspiration for the 'D' party were brought to fruition through the thoughts and writings of a man named Karl Marx.

Wrong.

Democratic Party was founded around 1828 and evolved from the Jeffersonian Republican.

Where on Earth did you get your information?

Matthew 7“Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

All posts and media uploads are expressed opinions of the contributing members and
are not representative of or endorsed by the owners or employees of Disclose.tv.

This site may contain copyrighted material. Members may make such material available
in an effort to advance the awareness and understanding of issues relating to civil rights,
economics, individual rights, international affairs, liberty, science & technology, etc. We
believe this constitutes a "fair use" of any such copyrighted material as provided for in
section 107 of the US Copyright Law.